Conjoined Darkness of Bigoted Certitude

Was this authored by a radfem trans-exterminationist or a radical christianist trans-exterminationist?

What is it about Baltimore County councilmember Tom Quirk? He sponsors a “gender identity” bill to legalize transvestite behavior with the result that cross-dressing men will be able to enter the ladies’ room. Then he fails to understand how this could be a problem.

Naturally upset that they will be forced to share their bathrooms with men, a long line of women testified before Quirk and asked him to consider their privacy and safety concerns. Rape victims complained that his bill opens the door to peeping toms and cross-dressing men still sexually attracted to women.

Was this authored by a radfem trans-exterminationist or a radical christianist trans-exterminationist?

Here is our point: male persons have cross-dressed in order to gain access to sex-segregated spaces with the specific intent to harm females. This has happened. Many times. That’s all we need to know.

Now ask yourself: What exactly is the difference in negative effect on the lives of all trans people between the hate espoused by radfem trans-exterminationists and that espoused by radical christianist trans-exterminationists?

Post navigation

23 Responses to Conjoined Darkness of Bigoted Certitude

Ever notice how they always say how there’s this danger of men invading the ladies room to commit sexual assault but never give any specific examples? If it’s happened “many times” where are the articles about in the media? Where are the citations of the arrests? Where is the slightest shred of actual verifiable evidence?

That’s how we should be attacking this bathroom assault idiocy, by continually demanding “Show us the arrest/conviction records. Show us the news reports. Show us the confirmed evidence that this is actually happening anywhere in the US.”.

Even the most bigoted activists and politicians can’t present what just doesn’t exist.

After all, the (attempt to have a) fact-centric discussion of the emptiness of your batshit bozo buddy Bil Browning’s exposé of the “trans activists” who may – in someone’s head – have “glitterbombed” Dan Savage in Vancouver worked out soooooooooooooooooo well, didn’t it?

And just for the record, I’ve said on my show, including just this past Thursday, as well as in print, that I think Bil did a lousy job of fact checking and sourcing his latest glitterbombing post. Where I get off the boat is I don’t and won’t define crappy journalism as evidence of transphobia.

Could be evidence of transphobia? Sure. Automatically IS evidence? No.

Have you forgotten I was one of the first to call Bil out on the Ron Gold post at Bilerico? Or that I was among the first to call Bil out for poor journalism on this one? Or the many other times I’ve called out Bil and others when I’ve felt they’ve covered transpeople wrongly/unfairly?

Anyone who’s read and listened to my work knows I’m no slouch at attacking this kind of stuff when it hits the media. In fact, I’ve been doing it a long time, a lot longer than many who seem to think I’m not suitably anti-Bil/Savage/HRC/target of the moment.

In addition, some people (like Marti) seem to believe that I go easy on Bil because my work appears at Bilerico. It’s kind of ridiculous when you really stop to think about it since now that I also write for the Huffington Post I have a potential audience which is many times the size of Bilerico’s and if the number of Facebook “Like”s and reader comments on the posts I’ve written for them is any guide, my work is now getting a lot more attention at HuffPo than it did when I was only publishing at Bilerico.

If all I really cared about was the size of my audience, I could have quite easily left Bilerico with only a comparatively minor hit to my current readership.

So, why do I stay?

Because I know Bil, and I’ve worked closely with him not only as a contributor but also as a contributing editor. I know that the reason Bilerico has the active and vocal trans readership it does today is because Bil, Jerame, and Alex proactively worked to make it that way back when the site had only a fraction of the readership and notoriety it does now, when it probably would have been far easier to just focus on gay content and perspectives like most similar sites do.

I stay because I think it’s important that trans perspectives are heard on an equal basis with non-trans, unlike sites like JMG, Towleroad, Americablog, The Advocate, and on and on.

I stay because removing ourselves from the discussion would help no one, least of all us.

I stay because when fuckups do happen, there should be trans people and allies there to call it out and provide a different perspective.

Even better, there are actual instances of sex-based discrimination laws not being enough to protect cis women (who employers can still require to wear makeup) where gender identity and gender presentation laws would have saved their jobs.

Bugbrennan doesn’t want to mention that, but you better believe I mention it in an upcoming column.

Since no cases of trans women (or trans men in mens’ rest rooms) anywhere have been found where they’ve abused children or other women in the rest room; they would actually be safer than if it was a cis-woman.

According to Child Maltreatment 2010, the most recent report of data from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), a nationally estimated 754,000 duplicate and 695,000 unique number of children were found to be victims of child maltreatment in the Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2010.

“In analyzing the victim data by relationship to the perpetrator, the 2010 data found that approximately one-half (53.6%) of child abuse and neglect perpetrators were women and slightly more than 45 percent (45.2%) were men.”

The Williams Institute conservatively estimates about .3% of people in the US are trans. That’s roughly about one million trans people given a current population of around 315 million. One million trans people who are using public rest rooms daily with not one such incident reported.

None…. ever……. by trans women in rest rooms. So – where is the greater danger really coming from?

==========================
“Now ask yourself: What exactly is the difference in negative effect on the lives of all trans people between the hate espoused by radfem trans-exterminationists and that espoused by radical christianist trans-exterminationists?”
============================

It’s nicer to be assaulted by someone who cares enough to dress for the occasion?

It’s the difference between being shot in the face (by the religious reicher) or being knifed in the back by the radfem. You expect the Reicher to hate you. You don’t expect the radfem to hate – but nowadays, you should.

Does anyone really think that someone who’s about to commit a felony against a woman in the water closet will be deterred in any way by the possibility of also committing a misdemeanor? That isn’t rational.

A law forcing crossdressers to use the men’s room in public places would eradicate public crossdressing. It would make it impossible to hold a convention welcoming crossdressers in a hotel, and would limit the public outings of crossdressers to the range of their home bathrooms. For many, it would either keep them in the closet altogether, or turn them into lawbreakers each time they need to empty their bladders. Crossdressers using the men’s room are in direct physical danger in most public places, and are simply not going to risk it. Worse, it is not in the nature of crossdressers, most of whom are not “out” with their crossdressing and intend anonymity while in public, to stand up and lobby or witness in public hearings against such ridiculous legislation. It will also make transition that much more difficult for TSs in the early stages of transition.

We won’t mention the notion of f2ms using the ladies’ room.

We also won’t ask who the bathroom police will be. I’d fear anyone who’d want that job even more than I’d fear the religious reichers, rednecks in a Texas men’s room, or radfems.

So I clicked over to the Radfem Hub to learn some more about the horrible trans exterminationists about whom “Kat” Rose is constantly obsessing. I imagined that the site would be like some sort of anti-trans Free Republic. Instead, I read Cathy Brennan saying this:

“As many of you know, I fully support rights banning discrimination based on gender identity in employment, housing, and “truly public” accommodations. It is critical, though, to recognize that females have a rational interest in preserving sex-segregated space, free from potential male predation. Many women of transsexual history share this concern, as well. We have solidarity of interest – that is, an interest in protecting female safe space – rather than solidarity of “identity” per se. It is only in working to promote common interests that we can effect political change . . . ”

Now I have no idea whether she is right or wrong about public accommodations. But even assuming she is in the wrong, can any sane person read this and conclude that she wants to exterminate trans people? You generally don’t advocate protecting people from job discrimination and also exterminating them.

That “Kat” Rose could get away with calling her an exterminationist and that no one else on this sad blog called her out only proves an essential fact: trans activists are nut jobs.

Yeah, given their comments policy, I could see how you would think these people were incredibly fair minded:

The discussions on this blog are reserved for women. Female-born, women-identified women are welcome to take part. This means that no male-born or male-identified person is given a platform to speak in this space. An amazing thing happens when women-identified women have the chance to speak, away from the carnivorous and necrophiliac behaviors of men. Our conversations get deep, rich, interesting, and fun. This atmosphere is valued and will be protected.

You must have missed this little gem, among others:http://radicalhub.com/2011/05/31/guest-post-sheila-jeffreys/
Oh, and the comments appended to just about every post there that even tangentially mentions trans women are often quite appallingly openly dripping with naked prejudiced hatred that no one could mistake for anything but exterminationist.

Now think about it this way… Would you accept the following as reflecting positively on the writer?

“As many of you know, I fully support rights banning discrimination based on sexual preference in employment, housing, and ‘truly public’ accommodations. It is critical, though, to recognize that straight people have a rational interest in preserving segregated space free from potential homosexual predation. Many persons of homosexual history (cured) share this concern, as well. We have solidarity of interest – that is, an interest in protecting straight safe space – rather than solidarity of ‘identity’ per se. It is only in working to promote common interests that we can effect political change . . . ”

Whether it would reflect positively on the writer or not, it wouldn’t remotely make him or her a “gay exterminationist.” And if I blogged that such a person were an exterminationist, I’d expect to get plenty of comments from other gay people telling me that I am delusional.

Also, your word switch exercise doesn’t actually work, since Brennan was talking about a concern over predation by males, not transgenders, whereas your word-swapped piece expresses a concern over homosexual predation. In fact, Brennan supports full access to all public accommodations by any persons who are undergoing treatment for a transsexual condition. Her concern seems to be limited to non-transsexual transgenders and only in the context of a few specific public accommodations like bathrooms.

Again, I don’t know and don’t care whether she is right or wrong. The only point I am making is that these are not the views of an exterminationist. That “Kat” Rose thinks that a person who supports trans civil rights is an exerminationist is evidence that “Kat” Rose is a nut job.

Actually, the nut job is anyone who falls for you and Cathy’s little rhetorical shams. Cathy does not view trans women as women. When she says “female,” she means “Assigned female at birth.” She doesn;t have to desire the murders of trans people to be a trans exterminationist, she just has to want to exterminate the part of us that is trans to qualify as trans exterminationist.

Someone can exterminate a people without killing the individuals that make up that people. By forced acculturation, for example. It is gay exterminationism to insist that gay behavior be outlawed, for example. It is hispanic exterminationism to outlaw the speaking of Spanish or the expression of hispanic culture. And in Cathy Brennan and Elizabeth Hungerford’s letter to the UN, they were being trans exterminationists by attempting to have trans women classified as men for the purposes of quasi-private public accommodations. They requested that trans women be essentially legislated out of existence as trans women.

Only a thick thickie who is also very thick would say that they were not being exterminationist. An asshole like you would probably phrase it as “Anyone who says that that letter wasn’t exterminationist is a ‘nut job.'”

Vic, you’re a fucking shill, and to top it off, you either don’t know or don’t care that transgender isn’t a noun. You sound like one of those backwards semi-senile grandparents who asks their kids, “Is he… a gay?”

Also, define transsexual? Are women to be demarcated by scalpel, forced to undergo a medical procedure? I didn’t know you were working in the Virginia AG’s office.